Marsha --
At 05:12 AM 1/27/2009, you wrote:
I agree with Bo that the levels are important and that the MOQ perspective
is above the level hierarchy. But I think a stronger impact can be made
from understanding the nature of the patterns
that inhabit the levels. So here I agree with you. Once the nature
of the patterns is understood, the usefulness of the level structure
becomes obvious. I am concerned that the patterns are seen as independent
(inherently existing) entities, just a new name for objects. This I think
is the wrong view. RMP has stated that there are no thing-in-themselves in
the MOQ, and he has mentioned Buddhism and emptiness, though he has not
stated my interpretation
directly.
So much of Pirsig's language is ambiguous that I sometimes suspect it gets
in the way of our understanding. You talk about the possibility of MoQ
having a stronger impact by our "understanding the nature of the patterns
that inhabit the levels." What, exactly, is a "level" if not an
intellectual pattern? If a tree is a pattern, why isn't the biological
process that produces it also a pattern? If a leaf that grows on the tree
limb is a pattern, why isn't the photo-synthesis by which it is sustained
not a pattern? Indeed, the nature of the earth -- its rocks and trees and
living organisms -- is "goal-directed process". What survives and remains
of this process (at least long enough to be recognized and identified) is
what you're calling a "pattern". What perishes or never assumes physical
form is past history or unrecognized phenomena.
[Ham, previously]:
If Quality is ultimately "dynamic", why do we experience its patterns as
"static"?
[Marsha]:
To create a sense of stability where one cannot be assured. It works
most of the time, because we define the rules so we can play the game
successfully. The rules are defined to our specification. If they work
they become a pattern. If they don't work or lose their functionality,
they slide into oblivion (or history). This is my interpretation.
Since we can be aware of only a minute fraction of what goes on in the
universe, we look for relatively "stable episodes" in this emerging process
and ignore the rest. Stability, like symmetry and intellectual
comprehensibility, has value to us. Your revered author once wrote: "A
thing that has no value does not exist." He's touching on epistemology
here -- how we acquire knowledge; but he leaves this important topic
undeveloped. I would suggest that "patterns" are stabilized forms of
"otherness" which are selectively valued and added to our knowledge. They
may be objects, processes, principles, or categories, depending on your
intellectual or aesthetic sensibility.
A pattern seems to be a static-making mechanism. A tree, for instance,
has a long process of growth with many attributes and aggregates. While a
static pattern of 'tree' will differ from person to person depending on
past experience, on the most superficial level there is shared pattern of
what is a tree. And on a superficial level we just overlay this basic
shared pattern of tree onto our experiencing a tree. We impose the finite
where none exist. Am I making sense?
That, I believe, is how an SOMist might explain patterning, except that
instead of defining the source of the pattern as "otherness", he/she would
refer to it as Quality (an MoQ synonym for Value). And, although Pirsig
doesn't say so, the SOMist would probably regard Value as something outside
of (external to) his/her subjective awareness. In other words, the
epistemology of SOM is that knowledge is acquired by the subject from
objective value. RMP would argue that there is no subject or object, but
that they are both patterns of Quality (Value).
Now, I've been accused of unenlightened SOMism because I acknowledge the
subject/object division of existence. Yet, Essentialism is a valuistic
philosophy. The difference is that my ontology has a metaphysical
foundation. Like Lincoln said on the eve of the Civil War, "A house divided
against itself cannot stand", I maintain that a divided ontology does not
meet the test of Reality. To put it simply, existence is not ultimate
reality. The self/other division that accounts for appearance is only a
differentiated image of its absolute source. What Pirsig calls
"pre-intellectual experience" is not experience but value-sensibility.
Experience is the psycho-emotional-intellectual process of differentiating
Value into a world of finite beingness. Individuated sensibility is the
cognizant locus of that world, and each of us is a participant in
actualizing it.
[Ham]:
And can you give me an example of what you call a Dynamic Quality
experience? (Kindly avoid Pirg's infamous "hot seat" analogy.)
[Marsha]:
A dynamic experience is one without thought. You are experiencing and
reacting without thinking. I don't know what else to say. I've had brief
little moments in all kind of everyday occurrences. It's without
analysis. It's spontaneous. More likely when I paint, but once while
driving on a curvy, country road. It was incredible. But these are a few
moments, not a steady stream.
Moments of epiphany are rare, indeed; but I submit that value-sensibility is
much less esoteric than the example you've provided. As a painter dipping
into your palette, don't the pigments individually have value for you? When
I look at a high-definition picture on a flat-panel screen, I'm aware of my
sensibility to color. Platt has often spoken of his sensibility to beauty
in works of art. There are passages in the music of Liszt, Wagner, and
Tchaikovsky that literally mesmerize me. Surely such "responses to" value
are common experience for those who have nurtured their aesthetic
sensibilities. What we don't realize is that ALL of our experiences,
whether aesthetic, physical, intellectual or social, are value-based. Isn't
that what Pirsig was getting at when he likened experience to the "cutting
edge of reality"?
Human beings exist on the periphery of Essence, sensible only to its value.
Everything else is an objective representation of that value. Anyway,
that's my epistemology. I've been somewhat long-winded here, but hopefully
it will help explain not only what "makes Ham tick" but why Value figures so
prominently in my Philosophy of Essence.
Essentially yours,
Ham,
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
